How old is the universe?

[lucaspa]

How about_:

6000 years. Creation took 144 hours, and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary.

Lots of theories, no evidence.

Lots of evidence. Objects visible in space that are more than 6,000 light years away. Therefore the light has been coming from those objects, and they have existed, for longer than 6,000 years.

The entire geological record, which cannot have been formed by a Flood and cannot have been formed in 144 hours.

The absence of any non-renewed radioisotopes with half lives less than 50 million years. If the earth were only 6,000 years ago, those radioisotopes would still exist.

Overlapping tree rings among bristlecone pines going back 11,000 years.

Varves -- seasonal depositions of layers at the bottom of still lakes -- that are millions of layers thick.

Ice cores from Greenland and the Andes with annual layers of snow deposits that are 60,000 layers thick.

And that's just a fraction of the evidence falsifying a 6,000 year old creation in 144 hours.

 

[Bushido216]

I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your post as a statement, not another poll option.

However, I fail to understand your point about science not showing millions of years. Last I looked, it did.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have a simple question. Most folks here seem to beleive that Science has proved and old earth beyond any shadow of doubt. What then do you do with the evidence that is collected (and many times conveniently disregarded) by Creation Scientists? Is this a hoax? Or do you simply disregard it as 'non-scientific' and 'hopelessly biased'?
Just a question I thought I'd pose. Sorry if I jumped into the middle of something and missed an answer that's already been given.

"But if you cannot understand how this (creation) could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are." -Martin Luther​

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I have a simple question. Most folks here seem to beleive that Science has proved and old earth beyond any shadow of doubt. What then do you do with the evidence that is collected (and many times conveniently disregarded) by Creation Scientists? Is this a hoax? Or do you simply disregard it as 'non-scientific' and 'hopelessly biased'?
Just a question I thought I'd pose. Sorry if I jumped into the middle of something and missed an answer that's already been given.

"But if you cannot understand how this (creation) could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honour of being more learned than you are." -Martin Luther​

In one sense Yes, I think they do lie. Some do it because they feel they are combating atheism, others like most AIG people because they are making a living of other Christian's donations.

In the other sense - what evidence have they collected? What research do these amateurs do?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Well at least you're familiar with the Answer's in Genesis ministry I'm sorry you see that as a money grab however. Have you ever been to one of there seminars? (Most of which are free) Have you ever seen there videos? (which are much cheaper than many other video series I've seen) Have you read their published books? (Which sell for much cheaper than there evolutionary/old earth counterparts) Have you ever read through one of their Creation magazines? (I can't think of anything to write in a bracket here ) As for research done by creationists being a lie, what reason would they have to lie? To support what the Bible says? Yes I agree that would be a reason to lie, but if you think would it not also make sense to tell the truth about something you want people to believe and build their faith upon? Let's look at the other side now... Scientist only ever do research for research sake, right? They never bring in a personal bias, because of course, that is what science is! WRONG! Every scientist whether creationist or non has a bias that comes out in their work, creation is a belief (I believe it has a solid scriptural and scientific background) evolution is also a belief. That's what we all need to realize, evolution takes just as much faith to believe as does creation.
In terms of actual research done by creation scientists I cannot direct you to any at the moment, but I'll do some reasearch and get you some links. The only research I have my hands on at the moment are from books and magazines which aren't much good to anyone online. So I'm sorry about that. Oh, and what makes a scientist a professional? A degree? A doctorate? Well then Creationists are just as professional as anyone else. Thank you for listening to me though! God bless.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

SolaScriptura,

I have read basically the whole AIG site, I have had dealings with several of their so called scientists in the past and have read their laughable pretence of a peer review journal.

I called them amateurs because most of them are not scientists but engineers, lawyers and medical doctors. The few of them who are scientifically trained seem to have done NO research in their fields. They got a PhD (most in practical science disciplines like horticulture science not evolutionary biology, astrophysics etc) and then left the field entirely only to resurface for pay at AIG or ICR.

Show me relevant publication lists in applicable fields to this debate. They don't have them I have checked. Or if they do they are 30 years out of date.

The most vociferous of the AIG guys is Jonathan Safarti - a virtually unpublished EX-chemist who writes on physics/astronomy/geology - subjects it seems he knows little about. I have had dealings with him personally and find him to be a shallow blowhard who just makes a living of Fundamental donations. Find something original he has ever done and you shall be the first.

Tell me Sola, you don't happen to be a poster on TheologyWeb do you? I thought I recognised your name. TWeb being a Safarti hangout as the poster Socrates.

My criteria for being a professional scientist is you should be actively working in that field (or a closely related one) performing original research being reviewed by the scientific community of that field. This usually involves posessing a PhD in the said (or closely related) field.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have read basically the whole AIG site,

Actually I've never found their web site all that useful but be that as it may...

I have had dealings with several of their so called scientists in the past and have read their laughable pretence of a peer review journal.

If you're referring to the "Creation Ex Nihilo" and "Technical Journals" then I must take offense at your comment on it being laughable. The journals are actually widely read by many in the scientific community and are hotly disputed. Please note that it is not the science within the journals that is disputed, but simply the way in which it is presented. Quite frankly people are scared to death that something other than themselves may actually be running their lives, they are scared that if someone actually planned to make them then they might actually have to listen to what that being says. And so anything that shows proof from the natural world, from a scientific point of view that things may not be as some say they are is attacked ruthlessly and discredited.

I called them amateurs because most of them are not scientists but engineers, lawyers and medical doctors. The few of them who are scientifically trained seem to have done NO research in their fields. They got a PhD (most in practical science disciplines like horticulture science not evolutionary biology, astrophysics etc) and then left the field entirely only to resurface for pay at AIG or ICR.

So engineers, lawyers and doctors are not professionals? Hmm, that's interesting, oh well, I guess you must mean that they are not professional scientists. Well if you say so ok, I simply restate the over used cliche "Professionals built the Titanic, an amateur built the ark." I know this doesn't prove anything, but do you think you could find it anywhere in your heart to look at someone writes as opposed to the letters they put with their name at the top of the paper?

Tell me Sola, you don't happen to be a poster on TheologyWeb do you?

Nope, but I may check it out!

My criteria for being a professional scientist is you should be actively working in that field (or a closely related one) performing original research being reviewed by the scientific community of that field. This usually involves posessing a PhD in the said (or closely related) field.

Ok, that works for me I guess, I'm only a youngun' and I only have a first year science education so I'm not going to argue science with you since you obviously know a lot more than I do. But I really don't think it is fair the way so many people write off Creation science as a non-science simply because it is religiously based. Yes, creationists start with the Bible and then go and try to find evidence. Is that a travesty against science? Possibly. But then what about men in the past who have rejected creation and then gone out to find evidence to support their oppinions, and what of every scientist that still does this? I really would like a response to the question of bias in both camps.

Anyway that's all, bye!

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Actually I've never found their web site all that useful but be that as it may...
If you're referring to the "Creation Ex Nihilo" and "Technical Journals" then I must take offense at your comment on it being laughable. The journals are actually widely read by many in the scientific community and are hotly disputed. Please note that it is not the science within the journals that is disputed, but simply the way in which it is presented. Quite frankly people are scared to death that something other than themselves may actually be running their lives, they are scared that if someone actually planned to make them then they might actually have to listen to what that being says. And so anything that shows proof from the natural world, from a scientific point of view that things may not be as some say they are is attacked ruthlessly and discredited.

So engineers, lawyers and doctors are not professionals? Hmm, that's interesting, oh well, I guess you must mean that they are not professional scientists. Well if you say so ok, I simply restate the over used cliche "Professionals built the Titanic, an amateur built the ark." I know this doesn't prove anything, but do you think you could find it anywhere in your heart to look at someone writes as opposed to the letters they put with their name at the top of the paper?

Nope, but I may check it out!


Ok, that works for me I guess, I'm only a youngun' and I only have a first year science education so I'm not going to argue science with you since you obviously know a lot more than I do. But I really don't think it is fair the way so many people write off Creation science as a non-science simply because it is religiously based. Yes, creationists start with the Bible and then go and try to find evidence. Is that a travesty against science? Possibly. But then what about men in the past who have rejected creation and then gone out to find evidence to support their oppinions, and what of every scientist that still does this? I really would like a response to the question of bias in both camps.

Anyway that's all, bye!

Sola, Sola, Sola.

I hate to burst your bubble but most (I would guess >98%) of professional academic scientists have never heard of their journals or AIG themselves. I asked around my department (Princeton) once and only a couple of people had even heard of ICR - no one knew of AIG or any of their people.

These journals are not even available at many University libraries. And that isn't censorship (big college libraries carry most anything) it's these journals are off the radar.

The 'science' in them isn't reviewed in the normal peer sense. As has been proven by several times them accepting material and then having egg on their faces such as the recent debacle with a 14 year old getting some nonsense in there.

If they had any real science of note why not submit to respected world wide readership journals such as in my field Astrophysics Journal, Monthly Notices Royal Astron. Soc. or Physical Review etc.

I'll tell you why they don't - because they produce childish junk that get's some more donations from rubes in the sticks.

Engineers are not physicists or geologists no matter how hard they try. Doctors and lawyers are tradespeople, pure and simple. A trade that requires much training but it isn't science.

Professional engineers built the Titanic - sure, but the Ark never was built.

No I look at the science not the name. Trouble is they don't produce science - period!

Creation science isn't written off because of the religion - it's written off because of the lack of science.

It seems you are a typical young Creationist who believes the conspiracy against your views just because your views are rejected by mainstream science. But many, many mainstream scientists are Christians - far outnumbering the miniscule 'scientists' at AIG and ICR. Why is that? Are they in on the conspiracy too?

Since you are young I hope you learn better but I get ticked off when I am basically accused of being involved in a conspiracy against Christianity when it comes from folks wh either know next to nothing about scientific matters or (even worse) are the charlatans and frauds at AIG & ICR who couldn't hold the jockstraps of anybody in an Ivy League, or CalTech, or MIT, or Oxford, or Cambridge, etc etc department.

Rant over.

 

[Sinai]

Meaning me?

I didn't think the OP was asking for evidence one way or the other. A poll was started, and I think the results will be skewed because the questions were slanted toward the notion that scientific study shows 'millions of years.' I intended to make the point that there wasn't a viable option for YECers, nothing more (or less).

I am sorry you think that "there wasn't a viable option for YECers," since the poll attempts to present the three major options followed by young earth creationists. If you would explain why you object to the language used in the poll (and if your reasons appear to be valid), we may try this poll once again with any needed corrections. I am not attempting to skew the results toward any particular direction; I was merely attempting to present the major options that Christians are most likely to choose (within the limit of 10 choices imposed by Christian Forums).

 

[Henhouse]

I am sorry you think that "there wasn't a viable option for YECers," since the poll attempts to present the three major options followed by young earth creationists. If you would explain why you object to the language used in the poll (and if your reasons appear to be valid), we may try this poll once again with any needed corrections. I am not attempting to skew the results toward any particular direction; I was merely attempting to present the major options that Christians are most likely to choose (within the limit of 10 choices imposed by Christian Forums).

Hey, thanks! I was straining at the bits a little. What bothered me about the poll option was the "Bible is literal and evidence doesn't matter" sound. I think most Biblical literalists who beliieve in the Young Earth also believe that the evidence matters, and in fact supports their position.

(I freely acknowledge that most of the day-agers, gappers, etc think the same thing about the evidence.)

 

[harmmony]

CHRISTIANS: What do you believe regarding the age of our universe?

What is your belief? Please vote in the poll, and then tell us your reasons. Thank you.

I think that the poll is a bit rigged. I happen to believe the world is around the 12 000 year old mark, but it has nothing to do with the creation taking 6 000 years. It has to do with the fact that I tend to think that bible geneology is incomplete and I think that scientific and cultural evidence is more solidly founded in that time frame. I am not trying to defend this position merely stating it as my opinion.

Also, although i dont have a clue who wrote Genesis, surely it would have been someone a very long time ago who wouldnt have any grasp about anything scientific. Indeed this person might not even be able to imagine that such a large period of time like 10 million years, could even exist.

You're assuming the first people were complete morons. I think that they would have been the most intelligent of any humans since. the ancient cultures (Egyptian, Incan etc.) knew a great deal about all things scientific.

1. Fact: there are no deer, antelope, or any other placental mammals in Australia. No placental moles. There are only marsupial mammals there.

This is a huge misconception in fact half of the mammals native to Australia are placental mammals, most are bats and rodents, but there are dingoes also. But there are no hoof footed animals native to Australia.

"Specifically, if the continents formed during the Flood, then how did the plants and animals get their present distribution? The kangaroos and koalas may have come from part of a single continent, but how is it that only kangaroos and koalas got to Australia after the Flood? Deer and antelope move just as fast as kangaroos and eat much of the same food. Why didn't they make it to Australia? And why would the very slow-moving koala or marsupial mole make it there ahead of the deer and antelope?

As to this question, I don't see why it has to have anything to do with how fast anything moves. Is it not possible that there were marsupials (for eg) on lots of the continents which died out over time due to climate changes, the old survival of the fittest. Eventually only the animals that could survive in particular enviroments of the world thrived, the rest became extinct in that area. There are quite a few cases (sorry I don't have any specific examples but could find them if wanted) where animals and plants have become extinct on mainland Australia, but survive in Tasmania or New Zealand and vice versa.

The distribution of plants is pretty easy to figure out I think, since seeds do survive in extremely hostile enviroments, they would have drifted wherever with the waters and then germinated and survived in those areas which were the most enviromentally suitable and died in those that weren't.

Deduction: if the Flood happened about 4000 BC (the normal time given for it), that means the Americas drifted 3,000 miles in 5,500 years. That is 2,880 feet per year or 7.89 feet per day or 3.95 inches per hour. That means a major earthquake per hour.

How much did the continents drift during the Flood? How much post-Flood? Asia and N. America have to move a combined 3,000 miles since the Flood. Do you have any idea of the frequency of earthquakes for that movement? It works out at about 1 earthquake every minute for the past 4,000 years! Don't you think people would have noticed?"

Firstly, I don't necessarily think that the flood was as recent as 4000 years ago, but is it possible that the continents drifted significantly shortly after the flood and then slowed to barely moving?

I also referenced you back to the Bible to show that it disproves your theory of a violent Flood.

I personally believe that Genesis 7:11 does tend to suggest a violent flood. I think that this scripture suggests an upheaval of the lands of the earth as well. Even now, I would consider floods to be a very violent natural occurence which causes all sorts of changes to the landscape. Imagine what the flowing and receeding of all that water must have done (the Grand Canyon?).

Genesis 7:11 - In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.

 

[Future Preacher]

Why would it take God thousands of years to create everything? Science is mans theories, so they have no way of telling how old the earth is. How anybody could think it's 11 billion years old is beyond me.

 

[Aduro Amnis]

Nobody believes the Earth is 11 billion years old ... just 50 thousand -> 4.5 Billion.
God likes to do things the scieintific way and doesn't like to interfer alot with physics ... that be my motto!

 

[Deamiter]

Why would it take God thousands of years to create everything? Science is mans theories, so they have no way of telling how old the earth is. How anybody could think it's 11 billion years old is beyond me.

Why would it take God six DAYS to create everything? It's a illogical question - the issue is not WHY God created the way He did, because that will ALWAYS be unclear (at least Biblically) but HOW God created. I think the VAST majority of Christians will agree that God didn't NEED any specific amount of time. The argument is in the evidence - and in the interpretation, not in the reason.

 

[Future Preacher]

Why would it take God six DAYS to create everything? It's a illogical question - the issue is not WHY God created the way He did, because that will ALWAYS be unclear (at least Biblically) but HOW God created. I think the VAST majority of Christians will agree that God didn't NEED any specific amount of time. The argument is in the evidence - and in the interpretation, not in the reason.

I agree that it didnt make any sense because God could have done it all in the snap of a finger. By evidence, did you mean scienctific evidence?

 

[ThePhoenix]

I agree that it didnt make any sense because God could have done it all in the snap of a finger. By evidence, did you mean scienctific evidence?

Yes. Now get whatever PRATT/PRATT list you found out of your system, they're no fun when you just insinuate the them.

 

[Sinai]

I think that the poll is a bit rigged. I happen to believe the world is around the 12 000 year old mark, but it has nothing to do with the creation taking 6 000 years. It has to do with the fact that I tend to think that bible geneology is incomplete and I think that scientific and cultural evidence is more solidly founded in that time frame. I am not trying to defend this position merely stating it as my opinion.

Since Christian Forums limited the possible number of options to a maximum of ten (10), I attempted to state the ten most common positions I have seen expressed by Christians. Some had to be stated a bit more broadly than I would have done had I had the ability to fashion 15-20 choices.

Your reason for thinking the earth and universe are about 12,000 years old is because you "tend to think that bible geneology is incomplete and I think that scientific and cultural evidence is more solidly founded in that time frame." You apparently have settled on the 12,000 year figure not because you think that each of God's days is a thousand years long, but rather because you disagree with some of the assumptions made by Ussher (and others who have adopted his calculations) regarding biblical geneologies.

It sounds as if the final option listed comes closest to stating your position: "@7-50 thousand years. I disagree with some of the assumptions required for the time since "creation week" to be less than 7-12 thousand years, but still disagree with most mainstream science, which should be disregarded and not believed."

 

[harmmony]

Since Christian Forums limited the possible number of options to a maximum of ten (10), I attempted to state the ten most common positions I have seen expressed by Christians. Some had to be stated a bit more broadly than I would have done had I had the ability to fashion 15-20 choices.

It sounds as if the final option listed comes closest to stating your position: "@7-50 thousand years. I disagree with some of the assumptions required for the time since "creation week" to be less than 7-12 thousand years, but still disagree with most mainstream science, which should be disregarded and not believed."

I understand what you have said Sinai, but I didn't want to put my vote to something that only closely stated my opinion, so I didn't actually vote in the poll for that reason. Also, completely disregarding mainstream science is a bit head in the sandish. Perhaps you could say that all evidence should taken cautiously.

I found your options quite enlightening though as I was not aware of a lot of the positions that you stated, so you have given me something for my education. And I realise the trouble you must have gone to to provide even the ten options that you did.

 

[lucaspa]

Why would it take God thousands of years to create everything?

Because that's how He chose to do it. He left the evidence saying so in His Creation.

Science is mans theories,

Science is reading the second book of God -- Creation. So science is finding out what God tells us.

so they have no way of telling how old the earth is. How anybody could think it's 11 billion years old is beyond me.

The earth is only 4.55 billion years old. We know from several radioactive decay series done on several rocks from several places around earth and from the moon. All of them give the same date.

We can go into how the age of the universe was determined if you wish.

 

[lucaspa]

I agree that it didnt make any sense because God could have done it all in the snap of a finger.

Yes, He could have. But He didn't. When you say "it didn't make any sense" you are telling God what He has to do to make sense. Is that a good idea?

By evidence, did you mean scienctific evidence?

We mean the evidence God left in His Creation.